invariable rule in Maryland

1948The correct rule is stated in Gambrill v. Gambrill, 122 Md. 563 at page 569, 89 A. 1094 , at page 1095, in the follow *149 ing words: “In determining this question of remoteness, there is an invariable principle that regard is to be had to possible, and not merely to actual events.

1948The correct rule is stated in Gambrill v. Gambrill, 122 Md. 563 at page 569, 89 A. 1094 , at page 1095, in the follow *149 ing words: “In determining this question of remoteness, there is an invariable principle that regard is to be had to possible, and not merely to actual events.

2001It was said in the recent case of Baltimore Transit Co. v. Castranda, 194 Md. 421, 439 , 71 A. 2d 442 , 449: “It is an invariable rule that in order to impeach a witness by proof of prior contradictory statements, a foundation for such impeachment must be laid by asking the witness on cross-examination whether he had made contradictory statements to a designated person and informing him of the place where and the time when the statements were supposed to have been made.

2001It was said in the recent case of Baltimore Transit Co. v. Castranda, 194 Md. 421, 439 , 71 A. 2d 442 , 449: “It is an invariable rule that in order to impeach a witness by proof of prior contradictory statements, a foundation for such impeachment must be laid by asking the witness on cross-examination whether he had made contradictory statements to a designated person and informing him of the place where and the time when the statements were supposed to have been made.

1948It is not determined by looking back on events which have occurred and seeing whether the estate has extended beyond the prescribed limit, but by looking forward from the time the limitation was made and seeing whether, according to its terms, there was then a possibility that it might so extend.” This principle and these words were quoted and approved in the case of Perkins v. Iglehart, 183 Md. 520 , 39 A. 2d 672 .

1947As stated in Gmy on Perpetuities, 4th Ed., Sec. 201, page 191: “No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some ‘life in being’ at the creation of the interest.” “In determining this question of remoteness, there is an invariable principle that regard is to be had to possible, and not *185 merely actual events.” Perkins v. Iglehart, 183 Md. 520, 527 , 39 A. 2d 672, 677 ; Gambrill v. Gambrill, 122 Md. 563, 569 , 89 A. 1094 .

1948It is not determined by looking back on events which have occurred and seeing whether the estate has extended beyond the prescribed limit, but by looking forward from the time the limitation was made and seeing whether, according to its terms, there was then a possibility that it might so extend.” This principle and these words were quoted and approved in the case of Perkins v. Iglehart, 183 Md. 520 , 39 A. 2d 672 .

1947As stated in Gmy on Perpetuities, 4th Ed., Sec. 201, page 191: “No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some ‘life in being’ at the creation of the interest.” “In determining this question of remoteness, there is an invariable principle that regard is to be had to possible, and not *185 merely actual events.” Perkins v. Iglehart, 183 Md. 520, 527 , 39 A. 2d 672, 677 ; Gambrill v. Gambrill, 122 Md. 563, 569 , 89 A. 1094 .

2008Bank v. Shafer, 87 Md. 54 , 39 A. 320 (1898) (holding that an “owner is entitled to his property, and to the use of it, whether it be real estate, chattels, choses in action, or money; and no court has the right to lay hold of it, or interfere with his lawful use of it, simply to await the result of a suit at law.”); Balls v. Balls, 69 Md. 388 , 16 A. 18 (1888) (“Except where changed by statute, it is an invariable rule that the holder of a debt cognizable at law cannot obtain relief in equity until he has shown that his legal remedies are inadequate.

2008Bank v. Shafer, 87 Md. 54 , 39 A. 320 (1898) (holding that an “owner is entitled to his property, and to the use of it, whether it be real estate, chattels, choses in action, or money; and no court has the right to lay hold of it, or interfere with his lawful use of it, simply to await the result of a suit at law.”); Balls v. Balls, 69 Md. 388 , 16 A. 18 (1888) (“Except where changed by statute, it is an invariable rule that the holder of a debt cognizable at law cannot obtain relief in equity until he has shown that his legal remedies are inadequate.

2008Bank v. Shafer, 87 Md. 54 , 39 A. 320 (1898) (holding that an “owner is entitled to his property, and to the use of it, whether it be real estate, chattels, choses in action, or money; and no court has the right to lay hold of it, or interfere with his lawful use of it, simply to await the result of a suit at law.”); Balls v. Balls, 69 Md. 388 , 16 A. 18 (1888) (“Except where changed by statute, it is an invariable rule that the holder of a debt cognizable at law cannot obtain relief in equity until he has shown that his legal remedies are inadequate.

2008Bank v. Shafer, 87 Md. 54 , 39 A. 320 (1898) (holding that an “owner is entitled to his property, and to the use of it, whether it be real estate, chattels, choses in action, or money; and no court has the right to lay hold of it, or interfere with his lawful use of it, simply to await the result of a suit at law.”); Balls v. Balls, 69 Md. 388 , 16 A. 18 (1888) (“Except where changed by statute, it is an invariable rule that the holder of a debt cognizable at law cannot obtain relief in equity until he has shown that his legal remedies are inadequate.

1999Id. at 1413 .

1999Id. at 1413 .

1985In Baltimore Transit Co., supra, this Court said: It is an invariable rule that in order to impeach a witness by proof of prior contradictory statements, a foundation for such impeachment must be laid by asking the witness on cross-examination whether he had made contradictory statements to a designated person and informing him of the place where and the time when the statements were supposed to have been made. [Citations omitted.] “This,” Judge Robinson said in Brown v. State, 72 Md. 468, 475 , 20 A. 186, 188 , “is but fair and just to the witness, in order that he may be enabled to refresh h

1985In Baltimore Transit Co., supra, this Court said: It is an invariable rule that in order to impeach a witness by proof of prior contradictory statements, a foundation for such impeachment must be laid by asking the witness on cross-examination whether he had made contradictory statements to a designated person and informing him of the place where and the time when the statements were supposed to have been made. [Citations omitted.] “This,” Judge Robinson said in Brown v. State, 72 Md. 468, 475 , 20 A. 186, 188 , “is but fair and just to the witness, in order that he may be enabled to refresh h

1976Beckner v. Chalkley, 19 Md.

1968Judge Horney, speaking for the Court, in Kerber v. Kerber, 240 Md. 312, 316, 214 A. 2d 164, 166 (1965), said: “While only slight corroboration is necessary in contested cases, the invariable rule is that every element to justify the relief sought must be corroborated.” See also Taylor v. Taylor, 238 Md. 312 , 208 A. 2d 685 (1965); Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Md. 322 , 131 A. 2d 703 (1957); Cullotta v. Cullotta, 193 Md. 374 , 66 A. 2d 919 (1949); Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Md. 324 , 46 A. 2d 627 (1946); Md.

1968Judge Horney, speaking for the Court, in Kerber v. Kerber, 240 Md. 312, 316, 214 A. 2d 164, 166 (1965), said: “While only slight corroboration is necessary in contested cases, the invariable rule is that every element to justify the relief sought must be corroborated.” See also Taylor v. Taylor, 238 Md. 312 , 208 A. 2d 685 (1965); Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Md. 322 , 131 A. 2d 703 (1957); Cullotta v. Cullotta, 193 Md. 374 , 66 A. 2d 919 (1949); Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Md. 324 , 46 A. 2d 627 (1946); Md.

1968Judge Horney, speaking for the Court, in Kerber v. Kerber, 240 Md. 312, 316, 214 A. 2d 164, 166 (1965), said: “While only slight corroboration is necessary in contested cases, the invariable rule is that every element to justify the relief sought must be corroborated.” See also Taylor v. Taylor, 238 Md. 312 , 208 A. 2d 685 (1965); Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Md. 322 , 131 A. 2d 703 (1957); Cullotta v. Cullotta, 193 Md. 374 , 66 A. 2d 919 (1949); Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Md. 324 , 46 A. 2d 627 (1946); Md.

1968Judge Horney, speaking for the Court, in Kerber v. Kerber, 240 Md. 312, 316, 214 A. 2d 164, 166 (1965), said: “While only slight corroboration is necessary in contested cases, the invariable rule is that every element to justify the relief sought must be corroborated.” See also Taylor v. Taylor, 238 Md. 312 , 208 A. 2d 685 (1965); Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Md. 322 , 131 A. 2d 703 (1957); Cullotta v. Cullotta, 193 Md. 374 , 66 A. 2d 919 (1949); Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Md. 324 , 46 A. 2d 627 (1946); Md.

1968Judge Horney, speaking for the Court, in Kerber v. Kerber, 240 Md. 312, 316, 214 A. 2d 164, 166 (1965), said: “While only slight corroboration is necessary in contested cases, the invariable rule is that every element to justify the relief sought must be corroborated.” See also Taylor v. Taylor, 238 Md. 312 , 208 A. 2d 685 (1965); Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Md. 322 , 131 A. 2d 703 (1957); Cullotta v. Cullotta, 193 Md. 374 , 66 A. 2d 919 (1949); Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Md. 324 , 46 A. 2d 627 (1946); Md.

1968Judge Horney, speaking for the Court, in Kerber v. Kerber, 240 Md. 312, 316, 214 A. 2d 164, 166 (1965), said: “While only slight corroboration is necessary in contested cases, the invariable rule is that every element to justify the relief sought must be corroborated.” See also Taylor v. Taylor, 238 Md. 312 , 208 A. 2d 685 (1965); Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Md. 322 , 131 A. 2d 703 (1957); Cullotta v. Cullotta, 193 Md. 374 , 66 A. 2d 919 (1949); Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Md. 324 , 46 A. 2d 627 (1946); Md.

1968Judge Horney, speaking for the Court, in Kerber v. Kerber, 240 Md. 312, 316, 214 A. 2d 164, 166 (1965), said: “While only slight corroboration is necessary in contested cases, the invariable rule is that every element to justify the relief sought must be corroborated.” See also Taylor v. Taylor, 238 Md. 312 , 208 A. 2d 685 (1965); Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Md. 322 , 131 A. 2d 703 (1957); Cullotta v. Cullotta, 193 Md. 374 , 66 A. 2d 919 (1949); Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Md. 324 , 46 A. 2d 627 (1946); Md.

1968Judge Horney, speaking for the Court, in Kerber v. Kerber, 240 Md. 312, 316, 214 A. 2d 164, 166 (1965), said: “While only slight corroboration is necessary in contested cases, the invariable rule is that every element to justify the relief sought must be corroborated.” See also Taylor v. Taylor, 238 Md. 312 , 208 A. 2d 685 (1965); Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Md. 322 , 131 A. 2d 703 (1957); Cullotta v. Cullotta, 193 Md. 374 , 66 A. 2d 919 (1949); Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Md. 324 , 46 A. 2d 627 (1946); Md.

1949Lickle v. Lickle, 188 Md. 403 , 52 A. 2d 910 ; Smith v. Smith, 192 Md. 111 , 63 A. 2d 628 .

1949Lickle v. Lickle, 188 Md. 403 , 52 A. 2d 910 ; Smith v. Smith, 192 Md. 111 , 63 A. 2d 628 .

1949Lickle v. Lickle, 188 Md. 403 , 52 A. 2d 910 ; Smith v. Smith, 192 Md. 111 , 63 A. 2d 628 .

1949Lickle v. Lickle, 188 Md. 403 , 52 A. 2d 910 ; Smith v. Smith, 192 Md. 111 , 63 A. 2d 628 .

1945Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank, 1930, 254 N. Y. 218 , 172 N. E. 475 .

1945Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank, 1930, 254 N. Y. 218 , 172 N. E. 475 .

1944It is not determined by looking back on events which have occurred and seeing whether the estate has extended beyond the prescribed limit, but by looking forward from the time the limitation was made and seeing whether, according to its terms, there was then a possibility that it might so extend. * * * The event upon the happening of which the remainder is to vest must be one that is certain to happen within the prescribed period, or the limitation will be bad.” There is quite a full discussion of the origin and applicability of the rule in the late case of Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Sheehan,

1944It is not determined by looking back on events which have occurred and seeing whether the estate has extended beyond the prescribed limit, but by looking forward from the time the limitation was made and seeing whether, according to its terms, there was then a possibility that it might so extend. * * * The event upon the happening of which the remainder is to vest must be one that is certain to happen within the prescribed period, or the limitation will be bad.” There is quite a full discussion of the origin and applicability of the rule in the late case of Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Sheehan,

1941This Court said in the case of Klecka v. State, 149 Md. 128 at page 132, 131 A. 29 , at page 30: “If objection be made to the admissibility of evidence, the invariable rule is for counsel to take exception to the ruling, the correctness of which is denied at the time such ruling is made, and unless so taken, the exception will be held to be waived.

1941This Court said in the case of Klecka v. State, 149 Md. 128 at page 132, 131 A. 29 , at page 30: “If objection be made to the admissibility of evidence, the invariable rule is for counsel to take exception to the ruling, the correctness of which is denied at the time such ruling is made, and unless so taken, the exception will be held to be waived.

1941An objection without an exception will not be sufficient to reserve the legal question raised. [2] Poe’s Pleading and Practice, sec. 319.” Deibert v. State, 150 Md. 687, 692 , at page 693, 133 A. 847 ; Rasin v. State, 153 Md. 431 , at pages 441 and 442, 138 A. 338 ; Scarlett v. Young, 170 Md. 358 , at page 365, 185 A. 129 .

1941An objection without an exception will not be sufficient to reserve the legal question raised. [2] Poe’s Pleading and Practice, sec. 319.” Deibert v. State, 150 Md. 687, 692 , at page 693, 133 A. 847 ; Rasin v. State, 153 Md. 431 , at pages 441 and 442, 138 A. 338 ; Scarlett v. Young, 170 Md. 358 , at page 365, 185 A. 129 .

1941An objection without an exception will not be sufficient to reserve the legal question raised. [2] Poe’s Pleading and Practice, sec. 319.” Deibert v. State, 150 Md. 687, 692 , at page 693, 133 A. 847 ; Rasin v. State, 153 Md. 431 , at pages 441 and 442, 138 A. 338 ; Scarlett v. Young, 170 Md. 358 , at page 365, 185 A. 129 .

1941An objection without an exception will not be sufficient to reserve the legal question raised. [2] Poe’s Pleading and Practice, sec. 319.” Deibert v. State, 150 Md. 687, 692 , at page 693, 133 A. 847 ; Rasin v. State, 153 Md. 431 , at pages 441 and 442, 138 A. 338 ; Scarlett v. Young, 170 Md. 358 , at page 365, 185 A. 129 .

1941An objection without an exception will not be sufficient to reserve the legal question raised. [2] Poe’s Pleading and Practice, sec. 319.” Deibert v. State, 150 Md. 687, 692 , at page 693, 133 A. 847 ; Rasin v. State, 153 Md. 431 , at pages 441 and 442, 138 A. 338 ; Scarlett v. Young, 170 Md. 358 , at page 365, 185 A. 129 .

1941An objection without an exception will not be sufficient to reserve the legal question raised. [2] Poe’s Pleading and Practice, sec. 319.” Deibert v. State, 150 Md. 687, 692 , at page 693, 133 A. 847 ; Rasin v. State, 153 Md. 431 , at pages 441 and 442, 138 A. 338 ; Scarlett v. Young, 170 Md. 358 , at page 365, 185 A. 129 .

1911Railway Company v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78 ; Hagan v. Hendry, 18 Md. 177 ; Cecil Bank v. Heald, 25 Md. 562 ; Boone v. Purnell, 28 Md. 607 ; Lee v. Rutledge, 51 Md. 318 ; Kendrick & Roberts v. Warren Bros., 110 Md. 76 .

1911Railway Company v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78 ; Hagan v. Hendry, 18 Md. 177 ; Cecil Bank v. Heald, 25 Md. 562 ; Boone v. Purnell, 28 Md. 607 ; Lee v. Rutledge, 51 Md. 318 ; Kendrick & Roberts v. Warren Bros., 110 Md. 76 .

1911Railway Company v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78 ; Hagan v. Hendry, 18 Md. 177 ; Cecil Bank v. Heald, 25 Md. 562 ; Boone v. Purnell, 28 Md. 607 ; Lee v. Rutledge, 51 Md. 318 ; Kendrick & Roberts v. Warren Bros., 110 Md. 76 .

1911Railway Company v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78 ; Hagan v. Hendry, 18 Md. 177 ; Cecil Bank v. Heald, 25 Md. 562 ; Boone v. Purnell, 28 Md. 607 ; Lee v. Rutledge, 51 Md. 318 ; Kendrick & Roberts v. Warren Bros., 110 Md. 76 .

1911Railway Company v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78 ; Hagan v. Hendry, 18 Md. 177 ; Cecil Bank v. Heald, 25 Md. 562 ; Boone v. Purnell, 28 Md. 607 ; Lee v. Rutledge, 51 Md. 318 ; Kendrick & Roberts v. Warren Bros., 110 Md. 76 .